[discuss] rootservers

[Seun Ojedeji]

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 25 Feb 2014 05:24, "manning bill" <bmanning at isi.edu> wrote:
>
> Answers below:
>
>
> /bill
> Neca eos omnes.  Deus suos agnoscet.
>
> On 24February2014Monday, at 20:17, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> > sent from Google nexus 4
> > kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> > On 25 Feb 2014 03:02, "manning bill" <bmanning at isi.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > (very local) root server.    Why would that be better for you/us?
> > >
> > > if the presumption is low latency name resolution,   this might be
reasonable,  if there was poor/no connectivity
> > > to the rest of the Internet  _and_ no caching locally.
> > >
> > Yeah poor is more like it as if there were no connectivity at all then
there won't be a need to use internet resource better.
>
> If bandwidth is a concern, then you don;t want a root server, you want a
hefty robust cache.
>
Did my mail imply that bandwidth is the issue?(well maybe) however If a
root server is as close as possible wouldn't latency be relatively better.
I have explained the mobile to ISP to name server scenario in my pervious
mail.

> > >
> >
> > > The downside of a local root server is that the root server is a
global resource and will be expected to field queries
> > > from anywhere on the Internet...   Which is why (many years ago)  we
installed and then removed a root server
> > > from Australia, since they didn't want to pay for the cost of
fielding global DNS queries.   Costs have changed since
> > > then, but the basic presumption is still there - a root server is
expected to answer DNS priming queries from _ANYWHERE_
> > > on the Internet, not jus those queries local to you.
> > >
> > You are very right about this and this perhaps is one of the reasons
why some ISPs don't won't to support hosting such servers especially in my
region where bandwidth cost is still on the high side. (Which is one of the
processes I refer)
>
>
> Again, you really don't want a root server....
>
Maybe you should tell me the cost you are referring to which made you drop
your root server in Australia as I think this still comes down to bandwidth
required to serve the rest of the world.

Cheers!
>

>
> > >
> > > /bill
> > > Neca eos omnes.  Deus suos agnoscet.
> > >
> > > On 24February2014Monday, at 7:53, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com>
wrote:
> > > > Marilyn, et al,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.  Two comments about root servers...
> > > >
> > > > 1. A list of which countries have root servers and which do not is
the beginning but not the end of the discussion.  The technical question is
whether a locale is being served well enough.  "Well enough" is usually
measured in terms of delay to get an answer to a look up, e.g. 89
milliseconds, and reliability, e.g. answers are received 99.923% of the
time.  (Both of the numbers in the previous sentence are illustrative and
not related to any actual measurement.  I made them up as I typed.)  On the
other hand, many people seem concerned with political questions, e.g. which
countries are important enough to have root servers.  It would help the
discussion to know what questions are being asked.  The list of root server
locations may or may not be relevant.
> > > >
> > > > For me, i am not really about the political aspect, just as you
indicated the more local the root is the better for us.
> > > >
> > >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140225/12cd100b/attachment.html>